A “radical feminist” blogger wrote a post a while back on how all “Penis in Vagina” or PIV intercourse is rape. Of course myself and others who read this dribble rebutted and or made fun of the post. Well, that caused more traffic at her blog. Most bloggers are happy to get additional traffic. Isn’t the entire point of writing these posts is getting others to read them? Not in her case.

When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. They write nasty and threatening comments, that in order to trash, I have to read at least a few words of. Even though it doesn’t hurt my feelings, they are still harmful and inevitably affect my thoughts.

How exactly does she know the gender of the those making the hits? I need to update my analytics, I don’t these type of break-downs immediately. Anyhoo, at least some are men. Those men are hateful beasts that only want to destroy.

85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life. Probably a bit less if you discount the women. If that happened, how on earth could I hide from tens of thousands of men?

There is no denying there is a whole lot of crazy out there, but hey isn’t this type of talk adding to it? I mean does she really believe that men are worried about her getting the word out that having intercourse is rape that they want to silence her? We. Must. Not. Let. This. Out. She must be stopped at all costs. She is letting out their little secret. They only want intercourse to subjugate us. We are nothing without them and they must be allowed to continue to rule the world. Oh my.

All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.

It’s interesting that Cathy Brennan’s response to the whole thing led a commenter, Tracy, to comment about what it meant on reformism: I hadn’t framed it in that way (see discussion here, here and here). I’ve been thinking about it for a while but haven’t had the time to comment on it properly so I’ll continue my thoughts in this post. Tracy defined CB’s post as reformist to the extent that CB doesn’t name the agent, that is why men isolating us from one another is so dangerous, why it’s so important to huddle together in this circumstance [because men are waiting in line to rape and kill us]. CB asks us to take safety measures against a threat -men- that she won’t name, and at the same time treats men as an audience to appease, as if they would take note and change their behaviour accordingly. Tracy named that gaslighting because it’s acting as if two opposites (truth vs. omission/lie; threat vs. safety) were the same. Of course it’s not CB’s fault because she herself is victim of it.

Men are waiting in line to rape and kill us? Really? I have never seen nor heard of such a line. May I make a suggestion, if such a line exists outside of your home, move. My neighborhood is quite safe. No men actively trying to rape you on a daily basis around.

I get that most women that call themselves a “feminist” call this thinking silly. The problem is that this is the logical conclusion to that thinking. Men are bad. Women are victims. Women are treated so unfairly that the government must step in to protect them. If the entire belief system is based on that women are tough enough and smart enough to be like just like men why in the world would you need the government to step in?

Life will never be fair nor will women and men ever be totally equal. There are differences between men and women that just are. Most men are stronger. Our upper body strength isn’t what there is. Of course there are women who are stronger than men, but generally speaking that isn’t the case. There was just a scientific study released that our brains are hardwired differently. It shows up in the scans. We are built this way. It is biological.

What really gets my goat about feminism is the fact that the majority of the work for women and “fairness” is done in the industrialized west. If they spend the majority of their time talking about how in some cultures the physical abuse of women is not only commonplace, but perfectly acceptable it would be different. In some countries, such as Afghanistan, women were beaten in public for having one strand of hair showing. The same still happens in Iran. Some women are not allowed to work. To heck with the fact that their husband or main provider has been killed or is missing for any reason, she still is not allowed to get a job to support herself. At least not without the threat of jail, physical abuse, up to and including the threat of death. I don’t hear these topics being discussed much in the world of feminism.

Feminism also makes great assumptions about men that I take issue with. Why do these women think that men don’t feel bad about working long hours and being away from their children? Do they think that they don’t care that they miss the school plays? Do they honestly believe that men don’t get wanky when the house needs work? It is assumed that they don’t feel overwhelmed by a weekend of yard work, soccer games, shopping, and whatever else their particular chores end up being. I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.

I know plenty of men who feel just as overwhelmed as women do when it comes to using their time most efficiently to get everything they want done accomplished. I also know men who are stay at home dads, so it is their job to clean, to cook, to do laundry, and whatever else needs to be done around the house all the while taking care of the kids. It is simply a silly assertion that men don’t feel the same type of things that women do. We all feel a certain amount of guilt in our lives. We all question our choices from time to time. I don’t think I have ever met a parent, male or female, that doesn’t wonder if they could have done certain things differently. That don’t dwell, even temporarily, on the mistakes that we all make when raising children. They don’t come with a handbook, it is trial by fire. That is especially true with the first one.

Just because we make different choices in many instances it doesn’t mean that men don’t have the same type of emotions that women do. One of the main differences is that men tend to keep these things to themselves. They don’t dwell on them in the same way that some women tend to do. Many men look at this as part of life and complaining about it makes them “less manly”. Men deal with them differently, that doesn’t mean that they don’t feel it. That is what feminism today says. That somehow men are emotionless and guilt free. They live lives that they actively believe makes them superior to women. A very silly and uncaring assertion.

Wow. Just wow. One has to wonder what experience(s) drove her to this point. The point where she sees all men as evil, as a a threat to be reckoned with, to fear and loathe. I love women. When I am with them, I want to serve them, not own them. I want them to feel beautiful, wanted, adored. Apparently that is “rape”.

It doesn’t take any wondering to know what drove her to this point, it’s feminism. This is unsugar coated feminism. The only real difference between this nut and Feminism101 is how well they hide the crazy. Both are saying the same things, but sites like Feminism101 is more creative with euphemisms and metaphor to avoid the obvious balls out crazy this one spouts.

Really, this is what I see when I read almost anything written by a feminist.

I actually enjoy reading Camille Paglia. I normally disagree with what she writes and her conclusions, but every so often I do agree with her. To me she is one of the “feminists” that gets it. American and European women are not the issues anymore. It is the women who live in non industrailized countries that are facing real issues. We have it made in comparison.

While campaigning for Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell’s campaign as well as his surrogates spent a great deal of time reaching out to all voters. His Woman for McDonnell coalition spread out all over the state to make sure they were accessible to women voters. While many on the right (Ahem Phil) call this pandering, it is smart politics. It is pandering if you are promising people things specifically based on gender, race, or any other group, but actually talking to these groups is simply spreading your message and helping them understand how your policies will help their lives. Governor McDonnell also has continued to do that throughout his term in office.

It has paid off:

Quinnipiac’s poll, conducted Nov. 8-12, found that among women respondents, 48 percent approved of McDonnell to 26 percent who disapproved. Fifty-nine percent of men had a positive view of McDonnell to 27 percent who did not. Overall, the governor’s approval rating stood at 53 percent.

McDonnell fared well among young voters 18 years old to 34, too. Forty-eight percent approved, and 24 percent disapproved.

Among black voters, who broke overwhelmingly for Obama last week, 41 percent approved of McDonnell, and 34 percent did not.

McDonnell’s results are uncommon among Republicans, said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute.

“He is the only Republican officeholder in seven states surveyed by Quinnipiac University who get positive ratings from women — almost 2-to-1 in this case — and a plus score from black voters. A 2-to-1 approval rating among young voters doesn’t hurt,” Brown said.

This is a state that two days before this polling voted to re-elect President Obama. Women went to Obama over Romney. So it isn’t that women are pre-disposed to vote only for a democrat. They will vote for the person who they believe best suits their needs and the needs of their families.

Now has Governor McDonnell been everything I hoped for? No, but they never are. Virginia has survived the economic downfall in this country fairly well. We have a rainy day fund (I don’t love these, but I do understand why they are necessary) that has just been increased, our unemployment is low, our taxes have not really increased since his administration took over, and he has kept the majority of his promises. All and all I think he has done a decent job.

My point being that he did the work and it has paid off. This is a lesson that many others in the republican party should take notice of.

The sexual revolution is not all that it is cracked up to be. I tweeted earlier today

40 years ago feminists burned bras saying they deserved to be treated as equals. In 2012 “Julia” depends on gov’t for life.

But it is more than that, the “feminist” culture has led to breakdown of the family, abortion on demand, and higher levels of dependency on government for women. It has the opposite effect that the likes of Gloria Steinem was fighting for. Women have become more dependant on government, instead of relying on themselves. It also takes away personal responsibility. Abortion is so easy that women don’t think of the long-term effects anymore. As Nike says, Just Do It. The consequences of it will just be dealt with later.

Because he didn’t sexually harass anybody because she said stop, and he stopped; she said take me home, and he took her home.I did notice that when we were listening to Bialek she said that she told him, “What are you doing, Mr. Cain, I don’t want you to,” and he stopped. She said no and that was it. No means no. . . . When Herman Cain drove the babe home she actually got there and is alive to talk about it.

Now, I am not a listener of talk radio very often. While I do sometimes get useful information, I personally feel it more entertainment than substance. But, shortly after the press conference I was in a car with a friend who was working on a local campaign to re-elect a state delegate doing a get out the vote effort for yesterday’s elections. He happened to have it on. I thought then that Rush went too far, but I didn’t really get to hear the entire thing.

Jill over at Pundit and Pundette didn’t take to the Rush dialog on this any better than I have:

Well yes, it’s true, no one’s accusing him of abduction or murder. But that’s what I’d call a pretty low bar. Would Rush have the same casual response if someone treated his wife like that?

She asks the question:

What she is accusing Cain of is worse than that. I’ve been out of the dating scene for a while and I know things have changed, but have we really sunk so low that a guy sticking his hand up a woman’s skirt and pushing her head down to his crotch is just making a romantic overture?

There are many things about Ms. Bialek’s story that I find troubling. There are things that just don’t make sense to me. One being that what she was describing is not harassment, but assault. That was a criminal offense and she should have contacted the police. Digging to see if she has financial gain to making these allegations, is she prodded along to make them, and if so, by whom? Those are legitimate questions to ask. Her credibility then becomes questionable. But, for people to talk about her sexual history is downright low and disgusting. Bill Kurtis has basically publicly called her a whore:

And lot of people [at CBS] know her and she has a history. . . . There’s a lot more to the story that is just developing.

One of the constant themes you hear from the right in regards to the media coverage of the accusations against Bill Clinton once he started running for president was that the media attacked the women instead of dealing with the allegations against President Clinton. That is exactly what Rush just did. He now no longer has the credibility to go after the press for not doing their jobs in regards to Clinton.

I believe that the first women’s motivations for making the accusation need to be examined. Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has pointed out an article done the by the AP on one of accusers who seems to have a history of making harassment claims. She went on to make another complaint at her next job, in fact. In that complaint she was looking for a raise and a promotion. Apparently, the claim was eventually dropped, but one can detect a pattern of behavior with her that makes her complaint against Cain much less credible.

As a woman, I find it just more than a more disturbing that the first line of defense is to call the woman a whore and to dig into her sexual history. In this day and age most women have a sexual history. Some may be more sorted than others, but few women were pure as the driven snow on their wedding nights. The right or wrong of that is up to your own particular morals. But if only a virgin or a woman who was on her wedding night can be a victim of sexual harassment or assault, most women better start not leaving their homes without a guard, because it will open season on many of us.

I have to hang my head in shame to see where Rush took this conversation. His sexual innuendo with her last name and saying that since she is still alive to talk about it is way over the line of decency. I am with Jill in asking if someone stuck his hand up his wife’s skirt would he just be grateful that she isn’t dead, and to heck with the gesture?

As a person who honestly believes that the media went too far in going after the women who accused President Clinton in a personal, demeaning, and disgusting fashion, I am no more pleased the some on the right are doing exactly the same thing. Investigate the claims and look into seeing if they are being driven by money or a sick attempt at 15 minutes of fame. But leave the woman’s sexual history out of it. It is none of our business.

No woman has opened the particular can of worms I am referring to. That is all you guy, all you. Her sex life isn’t our business and making a claim of rape, harassment, assault or anything else that a woman may make still doesn’t make it our business.

Sheeeeew, I knew I was steppin` in it as soon as I clicked the “reply” button. ;-)

The women made the charges. That`s the very first thing the vast majority of us knew about it. There is the “opening of the can” ! That being said, I agree with you, it really isn`t our biz. I like knowing people are happy with their lives, but I don`t need nor want all the details.

You and I know, in a correct world, people`s personal lives would be left “personal”. None of us believes this is a correct or even remotely fair world. Ugly invasions of privacy are gonna happen, we can watch or don`t. I like it no more than you.

As for Rush, he is a cheer leader for the right. He can be expected to do the opposite of what the left does. He is attacking the women while the left attacks Cain. Right or wrong, there it is ….. He has a remarkable record as “America`s Truth Detector”.

My position is, this all gives me pause. I`ve backed up to take a wider-angle view, hoping to see more of the forest, waiting to see what shakes out. How`s that for mixed metaphors ? ;-)

One more; if you attempt to sling mud on someone, you`re gonna get some on yourself.

No, it would be accurate to say that men are doing what men have doing forever. Treating a woman who makes a claim into a whore. This is the age old story of the rape victim who deserved it because her skirt was too short.

Women continue to treated as sexual objects by some, and it is very disappointing to see and hear conservative men doing it.

OK, have it your way, but you`ll have it without me. I`m feeling really uncomfortable under your all-encompassing man-blanket !

GOD made me so much more than just an instinctive animal ! I happen to respect and love women and see women as equals, to be appreciated and wooed, not taken as property or dismissed as somehow less than myself. I reject your premise.

“No, it would be accurate to say that men are doing what men have doing forever.” (sic)

That would be the all-encompassing man-blanket.

“That is all you guy, all you.”

That was personal. I didn`t open the subject / “can-o-worms”, Politico`s reporter`s and this last woman / accuser did.

One simple, four letter word could have avoided the insult I felt, “some”, as in “some men”. OR, “too damn many” men, OR, “A frustratingly large number of” men. Anything to show that you realize that some of us men try to be Christian men.

I read your posts with interest and comment to share my opinion and hopefully, to encourage you to write more. I accept that you have medical issues that I credit for your many typos, but I take them in stride, giving every effort to take your story in the sense you intend.

I don’t know if those women are slutty or not and I DON’T CARE, but one of them has a history of causing trouble for former employers with false accusations and another has a history of filing all kinds of lawsuits – a career “victim”. That they come out NOW all these years later with these unprovable stories doesn’t make them ‘whores’ regardless of their sexual history, it makes them bitches, gold digging and/or attention seeking BITCHES. They are not credible and neither is the moron stream media. When I see a story in the NY Times or some other MSM entity about Obama’s murdered dead gay alleged lovers then maybe I will give a flying fig about something they allege about Herman Cain or any other Republican. Until that day comes, nothing they say is worth a tinker’s damn.

I don’t listen to talk radio (radios are for me to find music I can sing along to) but are you sure the reference to ‘history’ explicitly meant sexual history? Could it not have mean these women’s histories of being litigious gold digging serial accusers who are well connected with prominent leftists? Those bitches do have histories that are not sexual in nature which completely undermines their credibility.

Yes, there was more to the quote. Let’s put Herman and Sharon in the car at the same time and the roles may even have been reversed, given the track record here. That is about her sex life plain and simple.

Feminists played on the sympathies of earlier generations by raising the specter of the back-alley abortion with a hanger. Since then we’ve seen millions murdered in the womb, and the horror of the Philly clinic for mothers and babies alike.

Now British researchers have concluded a major study, upending prevalent American ones:

An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.

This review, which is larger than any study to date, contradicts the recent and biased and less systematic review by the American Psychological Association, which fails to find a relationship between mental health problems and abortion. The new meta-analysis also contradicts the stance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which has been silent on the mental health impact of abortion in its official publications despite overwhelming evidence over the last two decades of abortion’s adverse effects.

Ignore the evidence at the risk of even women’s health, the gaping loophole of the abortion at all costs crowd.

I suggest you go back and read this paper thoroughly. The authors are not nearly so sure of the strength of the findings as you appear to be. They describe the link as statistically ‘modest’ and ‘small’.

If you are as familiar with this study as you claim to be, in the interests of fairness you should also mention that the study has been heavily criticised for including data from abortions performed for ANY reason at all – including abortions performed on embryos that were simply not viable, i.e., had no chance of living to birth or after birth, and embryos that, had they been allowed to continue developing, would have resulted in the death of the mother. It is unsurprising that women who found themselves in these situations would report an increased incidence of poor mental health and so skew the data in the direction of the effect found.

You should also mention, in the interests of honesty, that the authors also noted that the effect size they found for increased mental health disorders after abortion was similar to that found in women who had suffered miscarriages!

They did find it statistically significant though. Perhaps more studies will be done–but this was a meta, more reliable than a single study.

I think it’s fair to include abortions for any reason. It’s difficult to get into the WHY of the suicidal beyond that. I can posit an opposite explanation to the ones you come up with. That will take more study but this one is on the record.

I find it very interesting that you seem to find a big difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. It is all the same thing, the baby is dead.

Also, there are plenty of mothers who carry to term children with health issues and some even go ahead with a pregnancy even when told it endangers their health. Tim Tebow’s mother’s for example. So to say that skews the numbers really doesn’t make sense. The only way it makes sense is to someone who thinks that abortion in those circumstances is the correct way of dealing with the problem.

I think the difference in approaches (between myself and yourselves) lies in the fact that I’m not American, I live in Europe. In Europe abortion is simply not the issue it is in some parts of the US If you were to hold a referendum with a view to banning abortion in any western European country it would be defeated very heavily, no question.

Medical procedures always incur risk. If you were to look at mental health outcomes after any type of invasive procedure, whether elective or not, you would, I’m sure, find negative mental health outcomes compared to pre-procedure. So the question I would ask is, why on earth single out terminations for comment?

backyard conservative – You state that meta studies are more reliable than single studies. This is wholly incorrect and I doubt if you would find a researcher in any scientific field or a statistician that would agree with you. Meta analyses are famously unreliable because no matter how you select the studies for the analysis you will always be adding large amounts of independent variables or ‘noise’ to the dataset. Meta analyses are used to identify possible trends for future research and not causal pathways. For example, there is no way that you could say that the increased risk of suicide found in the meta analysis is due to women having had a termination (and the authors make this point).

The reason that including abortions performed for any reason is an error is because women who have abortions by choice might have differing underlying personalities and/or mental health histories than women who have abortions reluctantly, i.e., they have comorbidities such as cancer or severe diabetes and need a termination to save life. Or, women who have a termination due to rape or incest. Or, without reference to the age of the woman or girl. The many differing groups and subgroups may each react differently psychologically to the procedure.

To put it another way, people who have surgery due to an underlying congenital condition may react differently psychologically to people who require the same surgery as a result of poor lifestyle choices. They may react differently is the surgery is performed as children, or adults. Or if they had children of their own etc etc There is no way you would include data from all groups in a study of mental health outcomes for liver transplant or cardiac valve replacement, for example. It just wouldn’t be good science. You’re trying to tease apart the effect that the surgery has – independent of the effects of age, history, marital status, lifestyle or genes.

With a similar study of abortion, you’re trying to ascertain the effect that the procedure has, independent of the reasons that women present for the procedure. Otherwise you might as well just get a group 14 year-old girls who’ve become pregnant after being raped by their brothers and study them, or a group of women in their 30s who are happily married and have high status careers and don’t want children to interfere with their lifestyles, and study them – then confidently assume that all females who have terminations for any reason, and from any background will respond the same. They wouldn’t I’m sure – and so it wouldn’t be good science, would it? So you study all the available groups in isolation and make your conclusions accordingly.

just a conservative girl – you refer to the subject of abortion and miscarriage as a ‘baby’. this is not medically true. The vast majority of terminations and miscarriages occur to a clump of nondifferentiated or semi-differentiated cells. In no way is this stage of development a ‘baby’. It is potentially a baby if a large number of physiological conditions are met. The fact that the majority of conceptions end in miscarriage, ususally at a very early stage with the mother unaware, shows that those physiological conditions are met comparitively rarely. You simply cannot call the product of a conception, a zygote, later an embryo, a baby, it is medically incorrect.

Interesting. Firstly, abortion is not health care. It is a lifestyle choice. Secondly, no one is talking about banning abortion. If Roe v. Wade were repealed by the Supreme Court the decision would then be left to each of the states. They can then pass the law that suits their values. Hopefully most would choose to protect innocent life. I myself am in favor of abortion for rape and incest, others may differ. As for saving the life of the mother, if she has a chronic condition she needs to be responsible in the first place. I know couples who have adopted for that reason. Abortion should not be used as birth control.

As far as being from Europe, well, you have a unique situation there. Not enough population growth to sustain you as Europe. Immigration is another matter.

Yes, meta analysis must be handled carefully. But I’d say this was significant and a trend identified.

We are talking about life here and the taking of it.It’s not something that should be parsed as a procedure. That’s dehumanizing.

Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

Not even having to pay for it will presumably enable even more forgetfulness. And more systemic abuse.

This is not really healthcare either, it’s a lifestyle choice, though widely prevalent, but it’s not limited to what we most commonly think of as birth control:

The requirement applies to all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. That includes the pill, intrauterine devices, the so-called morning-after pill, and newer forms of long-acting implantable hormonal contraceptives that are becoming widely used in the rest of the industrialized world.

Coverage with no copays for the morning-after pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The FDA classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

And what this ruling does as well is increase costs–eventually leading to rationing health care to less politically correct people and real diseases.

My God! This filthy extreme left Obamamaniac is really going to go after the foster children of Rep Bachman? I had to listen to this clip 3x to believe she actually said that. Obama’s children are off limits, but the extreme left is already planning to go after Rep Bachman’s children, and openly saying it publicly? I have never seen or heard anything as filthy or sleazy, and I’ve heard and seen a lot. Ms Walsh has hit a new low for the extreme left. I don’t know how you get dirtier than this. Obama should publicly reprimand her and tell the extreme left that people’s children are off limits, that is unless this started out of the White House?

…at his official residence. Zuma was scheduled to be out of the country. That’s South Africa. Three wives. According to Wiki he’s been married quite a lot, including a “fiancee” by another name he was supposedly to marry last December.

South Africa has an unemployment rate upwards of 30 percent. In some communities the percentage is even higher. The idea that a president would spend more time dealing with sex scandals instead of fixing the country’s economic woes does not sit well with many people, says Spio-Garbrah.

“Zuma has always presented himself as the common man. The problem for many South Africans is ‘if half of us are unemployed and the rest are barely surviving, how come you can afford to have 19 children, three wives and one girlfriend?'” he says. “For someone who doesn’t have job, who can’t even afford to feed his family, for Zuma to be going around and fathering children left, right and center would irk such a person.”

Former member of the communist party. Living large.

Then there are the corruption charges, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary in most countries, not to mentionChicago.

No wonder he’s out of the country, the State Dept. probably insisted on it.

“She’s coming on this trip to talk about women’s development and youth development, and South Africa’s a leader in that, not only on the continent but globally,” said Elizabeth Trudeau, spokesman for the US embassy in Pretoria.

Sydney tells me: “Many Girl Scouts are good, wholesome girls. The problem lies within the national organization’s leadership and its lack of adherence to its promise of neutrality.” She adds that girls often need and “should get help, but Planned Parenthood and abortion — what GSUSA is directing them to — are not help. Abortion has serious risks for women, including breast cancer, infertility, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Does this sound like help?”

“If we had a say,” Sydney continues, “we would make it so they were truly neutral about a girl’s health and sexuality, abortion and birth control, and political affiliations, as they promise to be. We would put the focus where it should be, on character-building and leadership activities.”

Comment via Lucianne: I am not aware of any kid that has a multiple dad

April foolery aside, this kind of news keeps getting worse and worse.

Growing up in a big, Catholic family I remember my mom commenting on some sneering in a Beatrix Potter book about large and improvident families. Ah yes, we were the irresponsible ones, breeding like bunnies.

So in these days of popping birth control pills and hopping in and out of bed who is having the large “families”? Who is really being irresponsible? Isn’t the government aiding and abetting child abuse?

And will the left ever admit this? Some glimmer of understanding:

An important message that doesn’t appear to be getting through is just how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent.

Well, duh, you know maybe Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown. Maybe if the Left hadn’t spent the last generation or two glorifying single motherhood and bashing family values we wouldn’t be seeing destructive stats like these.

I must be the odd one out. I know very few people who have children with more than one person. Only two of my friends have been divorced. Even growing up very few of my friends came from divorced homes. Now, were they happy? I don’t know. But they did stay together.

I totally agree with Deb, the breakdown of the family is part of the far left agenda.

The Credit Card Act was supposed to rein in eeeevil financial institutions. Now that the Federal Reserve is proposing rules based on the legislation mandating consideration of independent income rather than household income as has been the norm, stay at home moms may have to have their spouses co-sign their card applications. TWS on the WSJ article. They go on:

This comes on the heels of another proposal by the Fed (subsequently tweaked), under which “retailers would have had to require customers to provide pay stubs and tax documents when applying for a credit card at the cash register.” Moreover, it’s par for the course. The Obama administration’s and Democratic congressional leaders’ preferred mode of legislating is to vest incredible amounts of quasi-legislative power in the hands of unelected officials (see Obamacare), who then proceed to issue legally binding “rules” that declare what Americans can or cannot do, nationwide.

Pretty archaic and demeaning. This stuff is making me mad.

Another unintended consequence of the Dems and Obama administration legislation–or was it intentional?

We know NOW and their ilk consider at home moms second class citizens. Now their allies are trying to implement it.

Rule-making without representation, another form of tyranny.

P.S. First Lady O receives no salary, perhaps she can take up this issue–if she can tear herself away from her latest vacation. Will she have to travel with her spouse next time?

I planned on posting this tomorrow. I can’t wait until the generic SAHM Oprah watcher/Obama voter goes to Target to apply for her 5%-off-all-the-time-discount! credit card and tries to figure out why she was denied.

“… mandating consideration of independent income rather than household income as has been the norm, stay at home moms may have to have their spouses co-sign their card applications.”

This is EXACTLY one of the issues that started the feminist movement back in the 1960s. Back then a wife had to get her husband’s permission for financial activity – and we’re kinda heading back in that direction. It’s ironic since I’ve been reading columns trashing feminists lately. The current women who use that term are NOT the feminists of days gone by. The original feminists fought to expand women’s freedoms. I hope we can remember that even as we fight to retain those freedoms.

Heh. I’m one of those people trashing the so-called “feminists”:http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2010/12/femininican.html
You’re right, the women who use this term NOW are absolutely NOT in the business of helping women or fighting for the rights of females at all. I highly doubt you’ll see any ‘feminists’ taking up this issue, but maybe some Femininicans will!

I see the Tribune has another op-ed pooh-poohing concerns. Have you seen these kind of columns in your local media?

Do liberals really want to defend this?

I’ve wondered for years when feminists, and gays, would join us in recognizing this theocratic, terrorist intolerance threat.

…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.

You wrote: “…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.”

No, the commenter was talking about Sharia law being intrinsically part of Islam.

He wrote: “The problem with sharia is, yer honor, that it is ‘Allah’s word’ expressed as law…it is sealed in cement, every part of it…It may not be enforced uniformly in every location, for various reasons, but it is always, ‘on the books'”

Sharia law is not a monolithic thing. It is interpreted differently by various Muslim schools (often for political gain) and comes from multiple secondary sources (not merely the Koran) that are not generally agreed upon– one school believes cleric A’s interpretation should be included, another school says absolutely not, etc.

The commenter’s wrong by the way. Yes, a form of Sharia IS practiced by all Muslims, but what’s “on the books” varies greatly from one school of Islam to another. Islam is NOT a single religion. Just as Christianity is not a single religion.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what commonalities there are in Sharia? You know, those pesky little things that seem to crop up in every instance that it is applied. Baselines, like women are property, lopping off various body parts is a wonderful deterrent and punishment, and . . . oh, let’s see, non-Muslims are treated under a different set of principles, rules, and laws than Muslims. There must be others, though, whatever might they be?

The whole “lopping of hands, feet, heads”- I assume the “hands” is in reference to Saudi Arabia? Reality check- In Saudi Arabia, ONLY after three previous convictions for theft is a hand removed as punishment. If you don’t think you could sell this as a good idea to social conservatives here, check out the popularity of three strikes laws in general (despite their lack of efficacy) and do a quick survey. I imagine you’d be surprised. In addition, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is the ONLY Middle Eastern/Islamic country that actually practices this.

By the “heads, etc” I assume you are referring to the death penalty in general? Yeah, gee, the U.S. doesn’t have a death penalty… Oh wait, we totally DO!!! We don’t give the death penalty for say, adultery (zina), but NEITHER DO THE VAST MAJORITY OF ISLAMIC STATES. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are outliers in this case, not the norm.

This isn’t a defense of fundamentalism OF ANY KIND. The point is that Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently different from or worse than Christian fundamentalism (who are just as eager to treat women as property). The differences between these mostly have to do with the conditions of colonialism. You can ignore that if you choose, but it makes you wrong-headed.

Maia: Why don’t you look up “cross amputation” before you lecture people on the cruelty of fundamentalist Christians, who, by the way, authored the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.

The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent. And if you live in Shiite Iran, well, you could be just dragged out of your car and beaten to death. Or shot on the street.

Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.

You: wrote: “Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.”

Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the various forms of Islam are all a bad thing because any Muslim could radicalize at any time?

Yes, Indonesia is in the midst of a pretty important political struggle. After Suharto was deposed, Muslim radicals (a distinct minority) emerged within the country, made proper political allies, and are now a significant political supporter of the Yudhoyono administration. They push for the de-secularization (is that a word?) of the country. All of this was absolutely ignored by Obama in his Indonesia trip BTW.

Radical Muslims are significant players in Indonesia in similar ways that white supremacists are political players in Europe. They have enough reliable, fervent clout to swing close votes– so they are courted by the mainstream political parties.

BTW, Aceh has been pushing for political independence from Indonesia since the 1970s. It was pretty much the tsunami that forced a (most likely temporary) diplomatic solution to the problem. Aceh is a special case among even the Indonesian provinces that have greater administrative and legislative autonomy. In 2003 it instituted a form of Sharia as its legal system– bypassing Indonesia’s secular laws and also can legally receive direct foreign investment– which includes money from Islamic radicals especially Saudi Arabia.

You wrote: “The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent.”

How do you come to this conclusion? Based on what criteria makes it dominant? Wahhabi is certainly not the most popular form of Islam in terms of numbers of believers– not by a long shot. Since it is dominant in Saudi Arabia there’s a lot of money associated with it and it’s aggressively promoted especially in the Muslim world– but I don’t see Wahhabi as being anything that could be described as dominant.

You wrote: “Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.”

Well, everything is dependent on one’s interpretation. All forms of religion believe that they are the truth and thus bestow certain privileges on their members. The special taxes and killing non-believers is hardly a universal belief within Islam.

The problem really comes about when there is no separation between church and state. I addressed this problem when talking about gay marriage (the govt. not having the authority to dictate what constitutes being sacred– such as the institution of marriage), but the point holds true for other countries as well.

Yes, Islam does need reformation, especially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, among aother places. However, saying Islam is evil and Sharia is trying to take over the world, does not encourage reform.

Reform has to come from within, but can be supported. As I have said before, the trick is finding the people and countries who are legit and have a chance of succeeding.

Sure, Islam could use reformation. As could, oh, EVERY religious institution out there.

The point is that your focus on Islam is 1) factually, observably based on falsehoods and myths and 2) inspired by fear that is promoted to you because your fear induces you to support the oppressive policies of powerful entities in the world (most of whom are NOT Muslim/Islamic).

lol, QR, Yukio can serve whatever he likes at his Thanksgiving table, but there is no way it’s traditional American Christian fare. He knows this. My guess is he’s becoming alarmed by the rightward swing of the ideological pendulum, right, Yukio?

I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam? Yeah, everyone else just decided life as a Muslim is so much fun.

I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.

And about that “control” thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are wearing a burqa and a face veil and sitting in the back of the mosque. What’s your life like now?

You wrote: “Yukio–Sometimes it is ‘us versus them,’ and I vote for us.”

Sometimes. But not now– not by a long shot. And I see no reason to make it so now.

You wrote: “I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam?”

Are you talking about the pagans circa 400AD that pre-existed Islam? You’re going to go back 1600 years? What about the Mayans and Aztecs that pre-existed Christianity in the Americas? Proof of Christian imperialism? Really?

You wrote: “I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.”

WWII didn’t start because a group of Nazis blew up a building. Do you really want to declare war against 1.57 billion people (including millions of American citizens) because a dozen or so radical Muslims committed mass murder?

You wrote: “And about that ‘control’ thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.”

You’re right. It’s not.

But the pragmatic question is what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Especially when it’s happening in another country? Declare war? Force them to behave in ways that you agree?

If you think reformation can come from attacking their religion, then we’ll have to kill many, many people to accomplish this. Are you advocating this course?

Yukio – Your definition of push back and mine are quite different, it seems. Maybe environment has something to do with it. I live in a Progressive paradise where people go out of their way to brag that they know “a Syrian” or “an Iraqi,” always stressing “what wonderful people” they are, as though knowing a Syrian or an Iraqi qualifies them for a Progressive Medal of Honor for exquisitely PC tolerance. I have heard people return from a Muslim country and the “endearing trait” of the villagers to lie to them. Immediately following 9/11, our family doctor grandly embellished the wall of his waiting room with a large poster of a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil with a gorgeous little baby girl perched on her knee to show the peasantry where his real loyalties stood. My email box was filled with frantic missives worrying that there might be “push back” on Muslims. One guy took to wearing a “sympathy turban” around town to ostentatiously demonstrate his support for supposedly threatened Muslims. I guess he wasn’t waiting to find out whether or not his family members, friends, and associates had survived 9/11. One woman told me that having an apartment overlooking the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center (as happened to a young friend of mine) was “not at all traumatic.” On Sept. 11, 2001, my bookseller sent a letter to the NY Times placing blame for 9/11 on the U.S. as a “rogue nation.” Got it published, too. Even to this day, at Thanksgiving, when it’s 30 degrees outside in rural New York and families are eating roast turkey, mashed potatoes, and hot apple pie, a young woman shows her “open-mindedness” by gracing the table with an “Islamic” dish meant to be eaten in an sub-Saharan desert during a holiday she never heard of, never mind celebrated. Etc., etc., etc., etc. etc. Talk about snooty, self-serving, PC “redeemers”. Ugh.

Now, I don’t propose making war on every Muslim that I run into; in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said even one rude word to a Muslim, which is a great deal more courtesy than some Muslims have shown me. But I definitely am not quietly caving in to politically organized Muslim demands–particularly the demands of foreign Muslims or those funded by foreign Muslims (known Hamas co-conspirators), nor am I willing to support the politically expedient notion that Muslims, by virtue of their very existence, should be handed the keys to the city, the school system, NASA, Ground Zero, and/or Justice Department because I am happy no subscriber to their ideology/ideologies has killed me today. I am not in the business of handing out free passes to enslave children, hold open season on Jews, Christians, and Sikhs, or import any brand of Shariah law into our country as some kind of faux First Amendment right.

My freedoms are mine and earned for me by people who sacrificed blood, treasure, and lives, and I’m not giving up those freedoms to make anybody happy. Education is a good place to start. The romantic ideal of PC tolerance for any ideology that rolls down the pike doesn’t stand up to the sobering reality of the Islamic missionary world view, which is so stern that Muslima fruit pickers feel compelled to turn in one of their neighbors for capital punishment because she doesn’t subscribe to their religion and resists the insult of being told that she can’t drink from the same water bucket, just because she is one of the last remaining Christians in their country. Islam is not Christianity, with a set of Commandments lending a relatively peaceful and charitable structure to a society, and that’s obvious. We have plenty of legal means to preserve our cultures in and out of courts; we don’t need to cooperate and we can resist both inside and outside of courts; and, as an obvious step, many European countries are tightening up their immigration policies; too late for them, but we might get away with closing the barn door in time.

QR, don’t take this the wrong way. I like you. I know you to be kind and good-hearted person, and I respect the things you have written on your blog.

Despite the fact this comment is addressed to me, you’re not talking to me, nor are you addressing anything that I’ve said. Who are you talking too?

Exactly when did I advocate child slavery (a real prevalent problem in the US?), hunting Christians and Jews, having NASA engage in Muslim outreach (which I blogged about NASA’s idiocy), etc.? You are assigning to me values that I do not believe in and views which I have not espoused.

Perhaps it is time for this line of debate to be ended, and we shall simply agree to disagree.

Yukio — Over on her Web site, Fuzzy has posted a wonderful Faulkner quote: “I never know what I think about something until I read what I’ve written about it.” And so it is for me.

I was attempting to answer the pragmatic question that you posed: “What am I going to do about it? What can I do about it? “It” being, in my mind, the ideology that leads to cultural acceptance of child slavery, slaughtering of non-Muslims, etc.

My experiences with Islam overall have been not at all like the romantic image that my (former) doctor wished his patients to accept: Islam as a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil dandling a gorgeous child on her knee. That fact is not a reflection on you. That’s a reflection on Islam.

It was and that makes it both rude and insulting. What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality. Except THIS is our country, our home. I’m so done with the PC crap. I’m a white, female Christian American, and I am not going to be “fundamentally transformed.”

“What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality.”

See, in this statement lies the problem. Not that you want space for your cultural traditions (which is absolutely reasonable and fair), but that YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO DEFINE WHO “WE” ARE and what “our” culture is.

In what reality is the U.S. not a nation of immigrants, from MANY faiths? In what reality are American cultural traditions NOT a mish-mash of things from other cultures and things uniquely local? In what reality are American cultural traditions uniform across the U.S.?

These things are the problem- that white, Christian U.S. Americans (both male and female) feel entitled to control the definition of who “we” are….
Because WE’RE NOT ALL LIKE YOU.

I am entitled to define who “we” are, Maia, because it’s based in our nation’s long history and who we are on this blog. America is a Christian nation, we have traditions and culture, and these are not difficult to find or define. What is “American” is actually quite clear and easy to define. It certainly doesn’t exclude people of all races and faiths, but it does and always has required that people who emigrate here become a part of America. Not the other way around. Now, WE, the people, are being told that we can’t practice our faith freely, that we must hide our religious practices, that we must, in essence, deny who WE, the people, are to make room for a few who don’t like America and who wish to change her. That includes not only our traditional recognition of the Judeo-Christian faith and religion but also the very principles of limited government and the free market on which this nation is based. If you are not like WE, the people, and you do not value America, her traditions and culture, then that’s your choice, but it does not change what America is, nor who the American people are. BO is fond of spouting off about how HE defines America and the American people, and he’s dead wrong. So are you.

I’m giving her a pass on this one. In our area, it’s not easy finding someone who hasn’t swallowed the Prog bait–hook, line, and sinker. I get to hear whatever the Libs are telling each other because they can’t imagine that anyone disagrees with them. It does get to be funny when you ask for citations so you can “read more about it.” I seldom encounter a Prog that can offer a source other than “I heard it from so and so.”

Multi culti recipes, no problem. Anti-Christian rhetoric in front of children is another matter. One of my Thanksgiving guests, a liberal man around fifty, whom I’ve known for fourteen years, led the conversation in the direction of bashing Christians for proselytizing. On a holiday, with six children/young adults at the table, I didn’t think this was appropriate. I was already a bit upset because everyone started eating while I was out of the room, and THERE WAS NO PRAYER. When I said to my guest that I found the subject offensive, he didn’t apologize and change the subject, as I expected he would, but argued back at me that he was just making fun of ‘proselytizing’. I suppose I should have pointed out that he was in effect proselytizing for secularism. Instead, I left the room, and the conversation (as I overheard) went on in the same vein for several minutes, making fun of Christians and conservatives for being racist and anti-gay and praising liberals for being tolerant and sophisticated. I said nothing further to criticize the man or his wife, and I sent them home with two pies and a bunch of other stuff. My family’s reaction was, ‘Mom, you shouldn’t have said anything.’ What do you think?

I think that he was incredibly rude and disgraceful. Liberals do tend to have no manners at all at times. He was in your home, no? Inexcusable. In my current It’s Time To Push Back and Defend Our Values mode, I probably would have asked for a word in the kitchen and requested that he respect my home, my children, and my values while he was dining at my Thanksgiving table. If he chose not to, I’d be A-OK with him leaving. With some pies, of course. :)

tennismom- This is a difficult one because you want to be hospitable, especially at Thanksgiving. I think it’s okay to interrupt the meal for the grace, which can be done with a light hand and–to save embarrassment–a white lie about everyone’s thoughtfulness to wait for the prayer until you could be present.

The bombardment of Christians for proselytizing is something I haven’t learned to confront successfully. I like your idea of noting that your guest was proselytizing for secularism. I think I’ll try it next time. Since you’ve known this guy for 14 years, you’ll probably have another opportunity to point that out, at a time more convenient for you.

Taking the high road is what got us into this mess. We can push back without being unChristian or abandoning good manners, there’s no need to sink to levels of rudeness, but I think it’s important that we stand firm against the onslaught and attacks on our American Christian values.

I so agree with you, Fuz, but I do have trouble being “as wise as a serpent,” if you know what I mean. I just start gagging. The assumptions that are accepted as absolute, irrefutable, obvious truth out there are just staggering. The other day I took the time to have a conversation with an earnest young “scholar” about what he is certain is the “superior” state of medical care in Cuba.

In June of 2009, Asia Bibi, mother of five, was working in the fields on the farm of Muslim landowner Muhammad Idrees, near the village of Ittanwali, when her boss told her to fetch some water for the rest of the crew.

After Asia brought the water, some of the women–all Muslims–refused to drink it because it had been brought by a Christian, making it “unclean.” The women called Asia an “infidel” and called Christianity a “religion of infidels.”

Asia reportedly responded by telling the Muslim women that Christ died on the cross for our sins. She told them Jesus is alive. “Our Christ is the true prophet of God,” she reportedly told them.

When local Christians informed the police, the police saved Asia’s life by taking her into custody, holding her in Nankana city “for her own safety.” Under pressure from local Muslim leaders, the police registered a blasphemy case against her.

Two courts in Nankana found Asia guilty of the “crime” of blasphemy and, on November 8, 2010, Asia was fined US$1,190 and sentenced to death by hanging.

“They asked me many times about their mother but I can’t get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed.”

Asia’s case is now under appeal, but she has been being held in isolation since June of 2009, essentially for the crime of sharing her Christian beliefs with her Muslim neighbors. Her family is one of only three Christian families in a village of more than 1,500 families. Asia’s family has lived in the village of Ittanwali for many generations.

Kristi Noem is definitely a rising star. The libs think Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is going to survive – we’ll see. No matter what the outcome in that race, Kristi Noem’s stock is rising. I personally think she is going to win though. Go Kristi

Anne Leary is done biting her tongue. Moderate in everything but politics, she’s got her name on the Blogs for Palin list, and she puts it to good use.
Read Her: Backyard Conservative
Follow Her: @backyardconserv

President Obama focuses on women in the economy during his visit today to Seattle. It’s part of a four-day campaign swing through five states in which Obama is urging voters to help Democrats maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate.

The trip comes at a time when Democrats are struggling with the womens’ vote, a key part of their constituency.

Female voters, once a reliable force for Democrats, are roughly split this fall between the Democrats and Republicans running for Congress and governor. Recent Gallup polling, assuming a traditional turnout for a midterm election, finds that Republicans are favored by female likely voters, 49% to 46%.

The conservative blogosphere takes up an issue near and dear to my heart, political mixed-marriages. It began from a New York Times article profiling some couples, including NR’s Richard Brookheiser and his wife Jeanne Safer.

Neo-neo-con observes, “Note that, in the marriages described in the article, it’s the woman who’s the liberal and the man who’s the conservative. This ties in with statistics showing that, ever since a transition time somewhere during the 70s or early 80s, women consistently have been more likely to vote Democrat and men Republican. . .. I’ve personally known a number of marriages of the mixed political variety. Almost all of them have conformed to this Democrat-woman Republican-man pattern. Almost all of them seem to be working out pretty well. In the olden days, the couples I knew used to laugh that they shouldn’t bother to vote because their votes always canceled each other out. Now, however, there’s a lot less laughter.”

I don’t know. I’m laughing.

“Luckily many wives view their husbands as barely functional Neanderthals so it’s often not a huge stretch for guys,” quips Maetenloch at Ace of Spades.

Mrs. CampaignSpot hates appearing in my columns, but there’s no way to address this issue without drawing from personal experience. I read the incredulous responses and am surprised at how much other people are surprised. At the end of the day, there is a lot more to life than politics. If the paramount priority of a relationship was to be with someone who was similar to you, we would all be homosexual. If you find somebody who you love, who loves you, who can put up with your quirks and foibles, and whose quirks and foibles only drive you up the wall in the good ways, grab them. You have the rest of your lives to plant seeds of doubt about their usual political notions.

What do we think about this? Are men more tolerant than women?:) As the discussion goes, you usually don’t see a conservative woman married to a liberal guy. Carville and Matalin the exception. (But then, is James Carville your usualleftist?)

As for me, I grew up as a Dem (where Dems were anti-commie and pro-life) and when I met my spouse wondered how a (Goldwater) Republican could be so nice. Now I’m more conservative than he is. And less nice:)

And probably the stultifying political correctness had something to do with my recognition I didn’t belong as a Dem–major intolerance there.

P.S. And interestingly, as we’ve seen this election year, women, a lot of whom are independents, may have their biggest impact through the TEA party. They’re looking at the burden on the next generation and getting involved as never before.

It may be even some single women don’t see Big Government as a reliable provider.

Great post. I was a default-liberal when I met my very conservative husband in college. (He’s nicer than I am, too. :) )

His theory, which seems to hold up about 95% of the time, is that women vote for the candidate with the best hair. Think about it. :) Though Obama’s hair is nothing to write home about, McCain’s was a non-starter.

Our love affair was precisely the opposite: I flirted with liberalism in high school but became increasingly conservative through my early 20s. My husband grew up in a SO CAL Republican, which is another way of saying RINO. I’m happy that I jolted him out of the usual male It’s-not-my-body-therefore-excuse of supporting abortion rights. And that my comon-sense logic beat law school logic on the inherent unfairness of progressive taxation. Flat rate, baby, all the way.

I saw Paula Deen eat one of those in a video clip. If I am going to have a donut I want a Krispy Kreme with vanilla filling but that donut burger is the perfect in-your-face defiance of Michelle the calorie czar. Really who is she to be lecturing?